A study in denial

From today’s editorials: The more zealous advocates of hydrofracking object to further study of the potential risks. Environmental safety can’t be overlooked.

On, and on, it goes in the battle over the potential environmental hazards and general wisdom of drilling for natural gas through a process known as hydraulic fracturing.

The advocates want to drill, all right — for the gas itself. But they don’t like government agencies drilling for information that might undermine their cause.

Republican congressmen and government regulators are up in arms over the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s plans to further study fracking’s effect on drinking water and public health.

Once again, the Republicans paint the EPA, which they’ve tried to eliminate entirely, as the bad guy. Perhaps they fear the conclusion will be too similar to a Duke University study (http:

/tinyurl.com/3mvk2h7) released last week that found a connection between drilling for natural gas and increased levels of methane in the drinking water in parts of the coveted Marcellus Shale.

Just listen to Rep. Ralph Hall, R-Texas, chairman of a House committee doing some studying of its own of hydrofracking.

“The study intends to identify the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water without ever taking into consideration the probability that such an effect may occur,” Mr. Hall says.

How could he know what EPA researchers are ruling in or out?

Then there’s Elizabeth Ames Jones of the Texas Railroad Commission. She says the EPA is being manipulated by “a few special-interest Grimm brothers who perpetrate fairy tales.”

What’s Ms. Jones preferred idea of a fairy tale, then? One where drilling goes on happily ever after, with nary a question or a reservation?

Fantasy has no place in such decisions, where the scenarios range from harvesting a very long-term source of clean energy to doing serious damage to public water supplies. Nor does denial, or resisting the general pursuit of science.

Just how little science would be acceptable to fans of drilling? Last week, the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Fred Upton, R-Mich., opposed a plan by the Energy Department to have scientists, environmentalists and industry representatives look at ways to make fracking safer. Too many studies, too many cooks in the kitchen, Mr. Upton laments.

This a dialogue, not a fairy tale, that needs more voices of reason like Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas. She warns:

“Let us not be fooled into believing that the drilling industry alone, out of sheer benevolence, will implement cleaner and potentially more costly technologies and practices. It has never worked that way. … Without regulations to level the playing field, there are few incentives to improve environmental performance.”

Talk about a study — in common sense.

2 Responses

Cheap gas will make the gas for renewable energy more absurd than it now is. For those of you who do not like the term absurd please explain why these cheap forms of energy require considerable public subsidy. Unfortunately we have to sort out the truth while having to deal with the greedy and the other side the disingenuous.

There are company’s out there that offer Water from Air technology also known as atmospheric water generators. These systems generate water that is 100% free of chlorine, fluoride, lead, recycled water, effluent and other toxic wastes. Most filtration systems remove all trace minerals from the water, thereby producing clean water. However there are systems that are specifically designed to retain the beneficial minerals that keep you healthy whilst removing impurities. So not only does an atmospheric water generator eliminate the need for plastic bottle the water generated with these dispensers costs in the neighborhood of 6 cents per gallon. http://www.koniafl.com